Advisory Services
Regulatory Services
Tax Services
Accounting Services
While the concept of transfer pricing is not a new one, its role has evolved greatly during the last decade. The transfer pricing role within multinational group structures has expanded significantly, leading to structural reforms that impact decision making at the core. While traditional tax decisions proceeded overall business decisions; today multinational groups are seeing a flipping of roles where tax decision and domestic transfer pricing rules play a significant role in shaping corporate structures.
As a result, for transfer pricing group companies the stakes have never been higher. Errors in compliance can lead to double taxation and worse yet, penalties from multiple tax authorities. On the other hand, tax teams working on implementing transfer pricing strategically can use it to their advantage.
Here are seven key roles that transfer pricing plays in how multinational organizations operate and managing legal compliance. This blog provides a detailed analysis and what this means when operating across international waters.
Here’s the honest version: transfer pricing is the mechanism that determines how profit is allocated across the entities in a multinational group. Every time a subsidiary in one country charges a parent in another for services, every time an IP-holding entity licenses technology to an operating company, every time a regional treasury function lends funds to a business unit; a price has to be set. That price determines how much taxable income sits in each jurisdiction.
The transfer pricing role in MNC structures is therefore both a commercial and a tax question. Get the pricing wrong commercially, and you misrepresent the economics of the arrangement. Get it wrong for tax purposes, and you either overstate profits in a high-tax jurisdiction (paying more than you owe) or concentrate on them in a low-tax jurisdiction in a way that tax authorities in other countries will challenge.
The arm’s length principle is the framework that governs this. It requires that transactions between related parties be priced as they would be between independent parties dealing at arm’s length in comparable circumstances. Article 34 of the UAE Corporate Tax Law embeds this principle directly: all transactions between related parties and connected persons must meet the arm’s length standard, and the burden of proof that they do sits with the taxpayer.
What this means in practice is that a UAE entity cannot simply set up intercompany prices based on what is convenient for the group’s overall tax position. The pricing needs to be defensible by reference to comparable market transactions, and it needs to be documented.
“Stratrich Consulting: Food For Thought Transfer pricing is not just a compliance exercise. It determines where profit sits across a group structure, and whether that allocation is defensible when a tax authority looks at it.“
Most multinational groups operating in or through the UAE have at least some of the following arrangements between related entities. Each one requires a transfer pricing position.
Management services, shared services, IT support, HR functions, legal and compliance support provided by a central entity to operating entities in the group. The transfer pricing business structure question here is straightforward, but the answer requires work: what would an independent company pay for the same service? The cost-plus method is commonly used for routine service arrangements, where the service provider is compensated for its costs plus a mark-up that reflects the margin an independent provider would earn.
The UAE’s FTA TP Guide specifically emphasises the benefit test: for an intragroup service charge to be deductible, the recipient entity needs to have actually received a benefit from the service, something that enhanced its commercial position or that it would have been willing to pay for from an unrelated provider. Charges for services that merely duplicate what the entity was already doing itself, or that were performed for the convenience of the parent rather than the subsidiary, will not pass the benefit test.
IP licensing is one of the highest-risk transfer pricing areas in any multinational structure. When an IP-holding entity, often established in a jurisdiction with favourable IP tax treatment, licenses technology, brand rights, or software to operating entities that use them to generate revenue, the royalty rate needs to reflect the arm’s length value of the IP. Too low and the IP jurisdiction under-collects revenue; too high and the operating entities over-pay, reducing taxable income in the jurisdictions where the commercial activity actually happens.
The OECD’s DEMPE framework, Development, Enhancement, Maintenance, Protection, and Exploitation of IP, is the standard used to determine which entities in a group are entitled to returns from IP based on the functions they perform and the risks they bear. An entity that holds IP legally but has no substantive functions in relation to the IP’s development or protection is not entitled to the full return on that IP under current OECD guidelines. The UAE’s TP framework broadly aligns with the OECD Guidelines, so this analysis is directly relevant for UAE-based IP arrangements.
Intercompany loans, cash pooling arrangements, and financial guarantees between related entities are among the most commonly mispriced transactions in multinational groups. The interest rate on an intercompany loan needs to reflect what the borrowing entity would pay to an independent lender with the same credit profile in the same currency and with the same terms. Simply using a parent’s borrowing rate for a subsidiary that has a weaker standalone credit profile, or charging no interest at all on intercompany balances, will not meet the arm’s length standard.
Cash pooling, where group entities pool their liquidity centrally, requires particular care. The pool leader typically needs to be compensated appropriately for the function it performs, and individual pool participants need to receive or pay interest that reflects their notional borrowing or deposit position. Getting this wrong is one of the most common sources of transfer pricing adjustments in groups that have grown quickly without formalising their treasury arrangements.
Where one group entity manufactures or sources goods and sells them to a related entity for onward distribution, the transfer pricing group companies question is how to split the margin between the two. A full-risk distributor bearing marketing and inventory risk earns a different return than a limited-risk distributor that simply processes orders on behalf of the manufacturer. The resale price method or the transactional net margin method (TNMM) is commonly applied here, using benchmarking studies to identify the arm’s length margin range for comparable distribution activities.
Before the introduction of Corporate Tax, the UAE had no formal transfer pricing regime. Groups could structure intercompany arrangements however suited them commercially, with no domestic tax authority scrutinising the pricing. That position no longer exists.
Under Federal Decree-Law No. 47 of 2022, the arm’s length principle applies to all transactions between related parties and connected persons, both domestic (between UAE entities in the same group) and cross-border. The FTA published a detailed Transfer Pricing Guide in October 2023, broadly aligning the UAE framework with the OECD Guidelines. And the Corporate Tax return, with its mandatory Transfer Pricing Disclosure Form, puts the question of intercompany pricing directly in front of the FTA for every eligible taxpayer.
Not every UAE taxpayer is required to maintain a full Master File and Local File, but all are required to substantiate arm’s length pricing and maintain sufficient records to do so. The formal documentation thresholds are:
Even entities below these thresholds are not exempt from the arm’s length requirement. The FTA can request supporting documentation within 30 days. Entities that cannot demonstrate arm’s length pricing on demand face both tax adjustments and penalties ranging from AED 10,000 to AED 100,000 for non-compliance.
Free Zone entities that wish to maintain their 0% Qualifying Free Zone Person (QFZP) status face an additional layer of transfer pricing complexity. To qualify for the 0% rate, a QFZP must satisfy a series of conditions, including that any transactions with related parties are conducted at arm’s length. Failing to price related party transactions correctly is not just a Corporate Tax risk for QFZPs; it can jeopardise their qualifying status entirely, exposing them to the standard 9% rate on all taxable income.
From 1 January 2025, the UAE has implemented a Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax (DMTT) of 15% for large multinational enterprises operating in the UAE, specifically those with consolidated global revenues of €750 million or more in at least two of the last four fiscal years. This brings the UAE into alignment with the OECD’s Pillar Two framework. For groups subject to the DMTT, transfer pricing policies directly affect the effective tax rate calculation. Profits shifted away from the UAE through underpriced outbound transactions to reduce the UAE’s local profits, which affects the top-up tax computation.
Transfer pricing and group structure are inseparable. How a multinational group arranges its entities, where it holds IP, where it places its treasury function, which entities carry risk and which operate as limited-risk service providers, determines what the transfer pricing framework needs to achieve and what documentation needs to support it.
This is the role of transfer pricing in MNC structures that gets overlooked when businesses treat TP as a compliance exercise rather than a planning one. A structure that was designed without considering transfer pricing requirements will almost always have intercompany arrangements that are difficult to price at arm’s length, functions and risks that sit in entities that aren’t equipped to bear them, and documentation gaps that become expensive to fill retroactively.
Conversely, a structure designed with transfer pricing in mind from the outset has a clear functional analysis, which entities perform which functions, bear which risks, and own which assets, that forms the foundation of a defensible TP policy. The pricing flows from the functions and risks, not the other way around.
A common arrangement in multinational groups is the principal structure: a central entity, often holding key assets, bearing significant risks, and directing the group’s strategy, contracts with limited-risk operating entities in each market that perform routine functions for a modest guaranteed return. The principal entity captures the residual profit (and bears the residual risk).
The UAE, with its network of double tax treaties, its position as a regional hub, and now a formal Corporate Tax rate of 9%, has become an increasingly common location for regional principal entities. Managing the transfer pricing business structure correctly in this context means ensuring the UAE principal entity has genuine economic substance, not just a registered address, and that the allocation of risk to the principal is genuine and supported by the entity’s capacity to bear financial exposure.
One of the recurring themes in both the OECD Guidelines and the UAE FTA’s own TP Guide is substance. A group entity that is allocated significant returns in a transfer pricing structure must have the people, decision-making capability, and operational infrastructure to justify those returns. Shell entities that hold rights on paper without performing real functions are increasingly vulnerable, not just in the UAE, but in every jurisdiction that has adopted BEPS standards.
“Stratrich Consulting: Food For Thought A structured designed without transfer pricing in mind will almost always have arrangements that are difficult to price, functions that sits in the wrong entities, and documentation gaps that are expensive.“
The UAE TP framework recognises the OECD’s approved transfer pricing methods. Selecting the right method for a given transaction type is not a formality; it affects the pricing outcome, the benchmarking approach, and the defensibility of the position under audit.
Method selection should follow the ‘most appropriate method’ standard, the method that produces the most reliable measure of an arm’s length outcome given the facts and circumstances of the transaction. Using TNMM as a default regardless of transaction type or selecting a method because it produces a convenient outcome, is not a defensible approach under the UAE framework.
Transfer pricing documentation is not just about satisfying a filing requirement. It’s the contemporaneous record of why the group believed its intercompany pricing was arm’s length at the time of the transaction. Documentation prepared after the fact, particularly after an FTA inquiry, carries significantly less weight than documentation prepared as the transaction was structured.
The Master File provides a high-level overview of the MNE group: its global business operations, its value chain, its organisational structure, the intangibles it holds and how they were developed, its financial arrangements, and its overall TP policy. It is designed to give tax authorities context for the Local File; they read the Master File to understand where the UAE entity sits in the global picture before examining its specific transactions.
The Local File goes to entity level. It documents each material related-party transaction: the nature of the transaction, the parties involved, the amounts, the TP method selected, the benchmarking analysis supporting the pricing, and a conclusion on arm’s length compliance. The Local File is the document the FTA examines when it wants to understand whether a specific intercompany charge, royalty, or loan rate is arm’s length.
Both files need to be prepared on a contemporaneous basis for each tax period and made available to the FTA within 30 days of a request. Groups that maintain documentation annually, updated as transactions change, are in a materially better position than those that try to reconstruct several years of intercompany pricing under a 30-day deadline.
For all eligible UAE taxpayers, the Transfer Pricing Disclosure Form is submitted as part of the annual Corporate Tax return. It requires disclosure of related party transactions above the applicable thresholds: the name of each related party, the transaction type, tax residence of the related party, corporate tax number, the gross income or expense, the TP method applied, the arm’s length value, and any tax adjustment made. This form is the FTA’s primary risk assessment tool for identifying which taxpayers to examine in more detail. Incomplete or inconsistent disclosures attract scrutiny. Consistent, well-documented disclosures do not.
The groups that stay consistently compliant and avoid disputes with the FTA are not the largest or most sophisticated. They’re the ones that have built transfer pricing into how the business operates rather than treating it as an annual documentation exercise.
None of this is unachievable for a mid-sized multinational operating in the UAE. The compliance burden is proportionate; groups below the documentation thresholds have lighter formal obligations, though not zero obligations. The groups that get into trouble are almost always the ones that assumed their TP position was fine because nobody had challenged it yet.
The transfer pricing role in any multinational group structure goes well beyond filing a disclosure form each year. It’s the framework that determines how the group allocates profit across jurisdictions, how intercompany transactions are priced, what documentation supports those prices, and how defensible the group’s position is when a tax authority, whether the UAE’s FTA or a counterpart overseas, decides to look more closely.
In the UAE specifically, the transition from a jurisdiction with no formal TP regime to one with OECD-aligned requirements and mandatory CT return disclosures happened quickly. Many groups operating in or through the UAE haven’t fully adjusted their intercompany arrangements and documentation to reflect the new reality. The cost of that gap is predictable: adjustments, penalties, and in the case of Free Zone entities, potential loss of qualifying status.
Stratrich Consulting works with multinational groups on transfer pricing policy design, documentation, benchmarking, and disclosure. If your group’s TP arrangements haven’t been reviewed since the UAE Corporate Tax regime came into effect, that’s the right place to start.
